Workplace politics is something no professional fully escapes, but understanding how it operates can mean the difference between a career that stalls and one that advances, according to experts who have studied and lived through its dynamics across institutions in Ghana and the United States.
At its core, workplace politics is not about campaigns or power contests. It plays out quietly, through informal norms, shifting expectations, and the unspoken rules that shape how contributions are valued and how individuals are perceived, often independently of actual performance.
Prof. Kris Marsh of the University of Maryland describes institutional expectations as a “moving target,” where even meeting explicit requirements such as research output and productivity can give way to subjective perceptions, with high-performing individuals sometimes labelled negatively rather than recognised for results. The implication is direct: success at work is not determined by performance alone. How that performance is interpreted matters just as much.
For Prof. Helen Arkorful, Associate Professor and Dean of the Evening School at the University of Professional Studies, Accra (UPSA), the practical response lies in institutional literacy. Understanding what policies actually say, rather than how they are informally applied, gives professionals a firmer footing when advocating for themselves or pushing back against practices justified simply as “the way things have always been done.”
Networks are equally critical. Prof. Candace M. Moore of the University of Maryland notes that professionals can become simultaneously visible and invisible within organisations, seen in some spaces but absent from the conversations and decisions that shape their careers. Building relationships beyond one’s immediate unit creates champions, opens access to information, and ensures that contributions are known where they count.
Mentorship and knowledge transfer also feature prominently in the expert guidance. Prof. Marsh highlights the value of sharing experiences across generations of professionals, treating workplace difficulties not as isolated setbacks but as institutional knowledge that can equip others navigating similar terrain.
Time and visibility, too, require active management. Prof. Moore’s counsel is clear: without a deliberate strategy for how time is invested, others will set those terms. In environments where expectations are uneven, the professionals who define their own engagement tend to fare better than those who simply respond to whatever demands arise.
At the personal level, Prof. Natalie Williams, author and lecturer, advocates a focus on excellence, strong relationships, and deliberate distance from unnecessary organisational friction. The goal is engagement without overexposure, staying connected to what matters without being consumed by what does not.
Finally, Prof. Marsh points to the value of networks and support systems outside the workplace entirely, spaces that offer perspective, reassurance, and a reminder that professional challenges, however intense, do not define the whole of a person’s life.
Workplace politics, the experts agree, is neither inherently destructive nor avoidable. It is simply part of how organisations function. Navigating it well requires awareness, institutional knowledge, deliberate relationships, and a clear sense of purpose that outlasts any single professional environment.
